Raving Conservative


Sunday, October 02, 2005

Homosexual Recruiting at Public Schools

"If there are people who don't feel comfortable with [prohomosexual] policies then they shouldn't be in public schools" Lynn Lavin, Gay/Lesbian Parent's Group

This isn't the worst of it. In the same article where Ms. Lavin makes this assertion she also speaks about how it is important to get prohomosexual policies in schools for the same reason they seek to keep religion out, because children are "easily persuaded"!

Listen, if you are a homosexual I don't care what you do behind closed doors even though I find it morally repugnant and think it violates basic laws of nature. However, DO NOT FORCE YOUR WAY INTO MY KID'S SCHOOL (K-12) AND TRY TO RECRUIT HIM! My kids, my beliefs. If any of them make different choices despite my best efforts they can live with the consequences, but the last thing any child needs is someone trying to convince him to adopt an unhealthy, immoral lifestyle that cuts years or decades off people's life expectancies.

Now for the meat. Here is how the recruitment of KINDERGARDENERS is happening. In prohomosexual schools there is a video called "My Family", a video that promotes "alternative" families. Books like "Gloria Goes to Gay Pride" are on the district approved lists for material for teachers to read to first graders. Entire primary schools are forced to participate in and promote gay pride parades. Children are given questionairres about their sexuality that challenge their notion of being a heterosexual. Eight-year-olds are taught that if they are not attracted to the opposite sex they are gay, and this at an age when almost all kids think members of the opposite have cooties and want little to do with each other by nature.

Groups like the Gay, Lesbian, Straight, Educational Network (GLSEN) push schools to block parents from attending prohomosexual rallies, and to keep these rallies secret from the parents if possible. At these rallies religious people are thoroughly denigrated as "unenlightened bigots" while homosexuality is promoted as the life to lead. Children who express confusion about sex and sexuality are directed to homosexual cousellors who invariably tell them the confusion they are experiencing is because they are undoubtedly gay.

I can't continue, I'm too disgusted.

Listen to me very carefully now. If you have children in school you need to review their class curriculum for the year and the school policies. You as a parent have a legal right to opt your child out of any instruction that is contrary to your beliefs. Excersize this right vigorously. Sometimes a school will try to circumvent this by refusing to inform parents of classes and activities that are of a controversial nature. This is illegal, fight it. Finally, spend plenty of time with your children and give them the training and instruction they need to grow up to be someone you can be proud of. No one else will do it for you.


  • I've had many gay friends over the years although i am straight. This group you mentioned seems to be entirely composed of nutcases if their agenda is as you describe.
    I believe that kids should be introduced to the idea of homosexual couples as ok while they are young. Gay people get so much stick throughout the states, all the way from disgusted looks to "Fag-beatings". As you said, you don't care what they do behind closed doors, just as gays don't care what you get up to behind your closed doors. However there needs to be movement to make being gay "normal", "acceptable" and "unremarkable". This movement has many heads from the gay pride organizations, to the ACLU, to this group you mentioned.
    Without these groups we are doomed to raise another generation of bigots that hate and fear homosexuals.
    As for recruiting for the homosexual lifestyle. The group you mentioned doesn't do that. If it tries then it isn't made up of gay people. Being gay isn't something you can be talked into. You are gay or you aren't. You can choose to live a life in denial, secretly fantasising about stuff that then makes you incredibly guilty, or you can admit it, get it out in the open and get on with your life.
    Gay people don't want to recruit your child. They just want him/her to understand that the only difference between them and straight people is that they fancy people of the same sex. Thats it. The idea of recruiting kids is not only ridiculous its also nonsense that the extreme right wing likes to peddle.
    After all, do you go along to gay pride marches or gay clubs and try and recruit people into the straight lifetsyle. Of course not.

    By Blogger Gribble The Munchkin, at 6:50 AM  

  • Gribble,
    I respectfully disagree with most of what you have said here. However, my responses would be far too long for this comments section and will be made known anyway in later postings. I'm not a bigot, but I have my positions and I stand by them.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 10:28 PM  

  • I don't think kids under the age of 10 should be taught about any sexuality, to be honest. It seems a but creepy and inappropriate. Once they hit the 'big school' those pesky hormones will kick in and this is where they need to be shown the truth about the whole sexuality thing. Yeah I know this is in your eyes a lie but I disagree. If parents and kids could be real about these things, and get to grips with the fact that every class in every school has a few gay kids then the world would be a lot nicer place. It would cut down on all that nasty bullying and ignorance too.

    Like Gribble posted, any group wanting young kids to learn about gay pride marches seem to be a bit mental. Not really doing anything positive and just reinforcing those crazy 'homosexual agenda' nonesniscal theories. In fact, let's just say that Gribble can say what I think as well as I can.

    Lifestyle choice? Religion, not gayness!

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 3:03 AM  

  • Absurdity.
    Gays don't recruit, but we remember the anxieties and agonies of growing up different. When we reach out to young people, it is to teach tolerance and acceptance, to prevent verbal beatings, and to permit kids that haven't yet come into their full sexuality to be less fearful of feelings they may have for persons of the same sex. Recruitment is not only absurd but far from the goal.

    When I was nine I already knew the difference between gay and straight. Kids engage in name-calling and want to know what the words mean. We used names to insult intelligence ("stupid", "idiot", "dummy", "nincompoop", "know-it-all", "nerd", "geek"), personality ("jerk", "wiener", "meanie", "asshole"), physical differences ("four-eyes", "giant", "shortie", "freak", "fatso", "cripple", "gimp", "stinky"), ethnicity (fortunately we made up physical difference insults since we didn't know many racial epithets), genitalia and sexuality ("dick breath", "dick", "pussy", "fucker") and sexual preference ("faggot", "gay", "gaylord", "homo", "queer", "ass-licker", "AIDS", "dyke", "sissy", "fairy"). We knew what they all meant and we used them as insults whether we believed the word truly applicable or not. The social education therefore is that none of these labels can be good if they can be used as insults. If nine-year-olds are already using such bigotry-charged words, then we already have our work cut out for us to make sure the words lose their negative implications by the time those kids out-grow this particularly word-violent phase.

    Nine-year-olds love disgusting jokes, particularly the boys. These jokes are not confined to eating worms or scatology. They venture into the sexually absurd and outrageous. At nine years old a kid is first beginning to feel the hormone shifts that in a short while will be puberty. More than half of children will masturbate before their tenth birthday. As adults we don't like to acknowledge the sexuality of children, it's taboo; but it's there nonetheless.

    By age nine, negative comments about sexuality are already having their negative impacts. Harm is already being done in the realms of self-image and tolerance. Guilt and fear of non-acceptance or physical violence already taint the potential gay kid's life.

    Anybody who says that nine is too young to discuss sexuality and preference intelligently because kids don't yet have an inkling was either a very late bloomer or obviously not gay. I know I had dreams at age six that I can still remember. They were confusing because I had only ever been taught that individuals coupled up with persons of the opposite sex. I felt foolish and a misfit. Empirical research as well as my own conversations with others confirm that I was far from alone in my experiences at those same ages.

    By the time kids go to school, be it kindergarten or preschool, or even daycare, it is important that all the kids understand that sometimes other kids have gay parents. At that age the kids don't need to know anything whatsoever about sex or sexuality. They already know the difference between a girl and a boy, at least in theory, and that's plenty. What the kids should see and accept is that parent groups differ in gender combinations and numbers (step-parents, etc). I know in my case I would have been a great deal less confused by the time I started having dreams and then masturbating had I a broader, more inclusive paradigm. Something as simple as knowing that there were gay couples way back at age five might easily have been enough to sustain me through adolescence and I might never have tried to hide by getting married to a woman.

    I have not even ventured into the discussion of nature. It should be enough to consider the following two facts. As of 1989 more than 200 species, mostly mammals, had been documented as evidencing instances of bisexuality and/or homosexuality even though plenty of members of the opposite biological sex were available and willing. Dolphins may be the most famous species demonstrating predominant bisexuality, yet any trip to a dogpark is an opportunity to see dogs trying to mate and lick in every conceivable combination.

    The second fact is that humans are intelligent creatures. We are all animals with all the biology and instincts implied. We are also intelligent, highly social persons, capable of being much more than our biology. We develop social structures and institutions that reinforce cultural values. Most societies on earth have organized homosexuality into their culture in one way or another. Violent suppression is the acception, not the norm. Even in Saudi Arabia, where "homosexuals" are punished by exclusion from society or even beheading, people recognize a third gender that appears among biological males: men and women mate, and men and the third gender mate—homosexuality is understood to be the inappopriate mating of two people of the same gender. Funny, in that context the Bible could be said to have NO proscriptions to any two people of the same biological sex having sexual relations unless as rape, incest, adultery, coersion, or prostitution. Hmm. Come to think of it, we don't need a third gender for that to be true. All the statements in the Bible that can be interpreted as proscriptions against homosexuality have a context of violence. There are no proscriptions of strictly consentual homosexuality in the Bible.

    The United States of America is supposedly a pluralist society. Religion is to be separate for state for two important reasons. First, history has demonstrated many times that when religion and government are one, tyranny at all levels ensues. Second, religion is both social and personal, they differ immensely even among sects of similar religions. Who is to choose which religions are better than others when they are all based on acts of faith? Better to respect them all but keep them out of the goverment and civil education. Some world religions consider homosexuals more holy than heterosexuals, as "the chosen" or avatars. The early Christian church sanctified the unions of homosexuals inside the church, while relegating opposite-sex marriages to outside the church only. Why? Same-sex unions were obviously motivated by love. Opposite-sex unions were generally financial arrangements and therefore always suspect in the love department. Without love, union was secular and banal.

    Nothing stopped me when I was 18 from legally marrying a young woman for purely financial reasons, but to this day I cannot legally marry any boyfriend no matter how obvious and true our love. Sure, we couldn't procreate with one another, but neither could my Aunt Hazel with anyone at all, yet she married and adopted. My partner and I could adopt and that child would be welcomed into a very loving nuclear and extended family lacking nothing of love or happiness. I would hope that that child of mine would not be subject in kindergarten to abuse from the other children and parents just because he had two daddies.

    By Blogger multitasker, at 12:01 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares